Court Information

Date: September 15, 2025

Information No.: 25 50016256

Ontario Court of Justice

His Majesty the King and Trevor McDonald

Reasons for Judgment

Proceedings

Before: Justice of the Peace A. Lavictoire

On: September 15, 2025, at Toronto, Ontario

Appearances

T. Cassidy – Counsel for the Crown

N. Chaabane – Duty Counsel

Reasons for Judgment

The Charges

THE COURT: Mr. McDonald is before the Court charged with four counts of theft under $5,000, 31 counts of fail to comply with his probation order, one count of possession of property obtained by crime. The allegations were filed as Exhibit 1 on consent.

In summary, between August 19 and September 5, 2025, Mr. McDonald is alleged to have committed multiple thefts under $5,000, one count of possession of property obtained by crime, and he is alleged to have breached his probation conditions requiring him not to attend at 190 Queens Plate Drive and 340 Queens Plate Drive in the City of Toronto. It is alleged that he has breached his conditions 31 times, including failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

At the time of the current offences, he was subject to four probation orders with nearly identical terms prohibiting him from attending locations where he had previously offended, specifically the shopping plaza at 190 Queens Plate Drive and the LCBO at 340 Queens Plate Drive. Despite these prohibitions, Mr. McDonald is alleged to have returned to those same locations and re-offended. When arrested on September 5th, 2025, two pairs of shoes from Winners were found in his bag as well.

The Legal Framework

This is a Crown onus matter. The Crown must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. McDonald's continued detention is necessary under one or more of the grounds set out in the Criminal Code.

Crown's Position

The Crown's position is to seek Mr. McDonald's detention on the secondary ground only, arguing that Mr. McDonald poses a substantial risk to public safety. The Crown submits that he is not a suitable candidate for release without strict supervision, which has not been proposed here. The Crown emphasizes on Mr. McDonald's lengthy and continuous record, including recent theft-related convictions in 2024. The Crown submits that Mr. McDonald, at 39 years old, has demonstrated an entrenched pattern of theft and chronic non-compliance. Despite repeated probation orders and community interventions, the Crown submits that his behaviour has not changed.

The Crown submits that the proposed plan of release which requires Mr. McDonald to reside at his girlfriend's house to be released on his recognizance with Sound Times' support, GPS monitoring which includes exclusion zones, does not adequately mitigate risk. The Crown submits that Sound Times is a valuable program but participation is voluntary, and there is no indication that Mr. McDonald would engage. Further, the Crown submits that GPS monitoring may deter a rational offender, but Mr. McDonald's history of ignoring non-attendance conditions show that such safeguards cannot be relied upon.

The Crown acknowledges that Section 493.2(b) requires considerations of Mr. McDonald's vulnerabilities but submits that they do not outweigh the risk he poses to the public.

Defence Position

Duty counsel proposes on behalf of Mr. McDonald a release plan which involves being released on his own recognizance with the support of Sound Times, to live with his girlfriend, and to be subject to GPS monitoring with exclusion zones. Duty counsel highlights Mr. McDonald's diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and P.T.S.D., along with addiction to alcohol, cocaine and crack. Duty counsel submits that in the weeks before Mr. McDonald's return to custody, he resumed taking medication for schizophrenia, sought support from Sound Times for housing and mental health needs, and began attending A.A. meetings, including while in custody.

While acknowledging his past difficulties in following through, duty counsel emphasizes that the current charges and his record are non-violent, that Mr. McDonald understands that this may be his last chance and is willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. Duty counsel also urges the Court to consider Mr. McDonald's vulnerabilities arising from his mental health challenges, addictions and identity as a black man, pursuant to 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code.

Court's Analysis

Legal Principles

In reaching my decision today, I have considered the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause under the Charter. I have also applied the principles set out in R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR 509, R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14, [2020] 2 SCR 3 and finally, I have been guided by the principle of restraint, as noted in s. 493.1 of the Criminal Code, and I have been guided by s. 493.2(b) which requires me to pay particular attention to the circumstances of vulnerable populations.

The Secondary Ground Test

The issue is whether Mr. McDonald's detention is necessary to protect public safety. The test has two steps. First, the question is whether Mr. McDonald's detention is necessary for the safety of the public and the community or whether there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. McDonald will endanger the safety of the public if released, or interfere with the administration of justice and, if so, the test requires me to determine whether the proposed release plan sufficiently mitigates that risk.

Criminal Record and Pattern of Non-Compliance

On the secondary ground, I take into consideration, among other factors, the nature and circumstances of the alleged offences, the strength of the Crown's case, Mr. McDonald's circumstances and his criminal record. Mr. McDonald has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 2010 and continuing, without meaningful interruption, up to August 2024. His record includes more than ten convictions for failing to comply with court orders, multiple convictions for failing to attend court, approximately 27 convictions for theft under, as well as convictions for break and enter and even armed robbery. He is presently on probation and now faces 31 additional counts of breaching probation orders. This history demonstrates a consistent and an ongoing disregard for court imposed conditions and for the authority of the Court.

Probation is intended to support rehabilitation in the community while ensuring accountability. When an accused repeatedly violates those terms, it fundamentally undermines any confidence that future release conditions will be respected. Mr. McDonald's conduct shows a persistent disregard for court orders and confirms that conditions designed to keeping him away from the locations where he offends have not deterred him. The repeated breaches and re-offending at the same businesses heighten the risk to property, to store owners and employees and the broader sense of security of community members who should be able to shop without fear.

Nature of the Offences and Public Safety

Moving on to the nature of the charges, duty counsel emphasized that the charges before the Court, as well as those in Mr. McDonald's record, are non-violent in nature. All the charges before the Court relate to theft under, traditionally categorized as a property offence. The secondary ground risks are not confined to property alone. Repeated acts of theft undermine the community's sense of security, particularly for store employees, business owners and ordinary shoppers. Citizens must be able to go about daily activities, such as shopping, without fear or insecurity. The risk here is, therefore, both to property and to the broader sense of safety and security in the community.

On the surface, it may seem that Mr. McDonald does not pose a direct risk to public safety given that the offences are not violent. However, the repeated nature of his offending demonstrates an ongoing risk to public safety that cannot be ignored. Public safety, in my view, includes more than protection from physical harm. It includes protection from fraud and theft, extending the concept of safety to the security of property.

This principle was recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ameyaw, 2024 ONCA 364, at paragraph 28, and in R. v. Omitiran, 2020 ONCA 261, a decision of the Court of Appeal, 2020. Stealing from businesses not only endangers their financial viability, especially in difficult economic times, but also creates substantial safety concerns for employees. Individuals such as students, cashiers and other staff members are entitled to work in an environment free from intimidation or insecurity. The unpredictable nature of theft incidents contributes to a constant sense of fear amongst staff, and the potential for harm to workers must be considered when assessing risk.

Sufficiency of the Proposed Release Plan

In taking into consideration the above-noted factors, I conclude that secondary ground concerns exist and that the risk is substantial. As such, I must now examine whether Mr. McDonald's proposed plan of release is sufficient to mitigate the substantial risk to below the threshold required for detention. As noted earlier, Mr. McDonald is proposing his release on his own recognizance with the assistance of Sound Times, GPS monitoring and exclusion zones per the locations that he is prohibited from attending. In my opinion, the proposed plan does not sufficiently mitigate risk.

With respect to Sound Times, while it is a respected community program offering counselling, housing and mental health support, its services are voluntary.

Duty counsel submits that in the week before his return to custody, Mr. McDonald resumed taking his prescribed medications, sought assistance from Sound Times for mental health and housing and attended A.A. meetings, including while in custody. There is, however, little concrete evidence before the Court to substantiate these claims. However, I am prepared to accept that Mr. McDonald may have taken some initial steps, but they are, in my opinion, limited and fall well short of demonstrating a reliable or sustained change in behaviour. They do not meaningfully reduce the significant risks identified in this case.

The letter from Sound Times, also before the Court, fails to confirm any meaningful engagement from Mr. McDonald with their organization.

Turning to GPS and exclusion zones, while GPS can alert authorities if Mr. McDonald attends prohibited locations, it cannot physically prevent offending. Moreover, exclusion zones tied to specific addresses do not address the broader risk. Even if prevented from entering the two locations, nothing stops Mr. McDonald from targeting other retail locations. His history of repeated breaches of nearly identical probation terms shows that he's not governable. These measures, in my view, are incapable of addressing the substantial risk he poses to property, businesses, employees and the public.

In light of his struggle with mental health and addiction, a solution oriented approach involving treatment, supervision and a concrete plan to address his addiction with the supervision of a surety could potentially mitigate risk. However, no such plan has been presented. While it was noted that Mr. McDonald resides with his girlfriend, no one has come forward to court to support his release, and there is no evidence of a reliable supervision of a surety that can assist him in addressing his challenges.

Consideration of Vulnerable Populations

In reaching the decision today, I have considered s. 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code which directs courts to pay particular attention to the circumstances of vulnerable accused, including those with mental health challenges, addictions or who are part of groups over-represented in the justice system. Black men are disproportionately represented in custody and face systematic barriers in the criminal justice system, circumstances that engage this provision. This section is meant to ensure systematic and background factors are not ignored and that racialized individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged in obtaining releases.

However, s. 493.2(b) does not create a presumption of release or immunity from detention. Vulnerabilities must be balanced against the risks posed to the public. In this case, I am not convinced that Mr. McDonald is being unfairly treated if a detention order is made. His criminal history shows a persistent pattern of failing to comply with probation terms and re-offending at the very locations he was ordered not to attend. Despite opportunities with probation orders, he has not engaged in a meaningful way with the supports he's been provided and continues to re-offend.

As noted in R. v. E.B., 2020 ONSC 4383, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will commit further offences and compromise public safety, the fact that vulnerabilities under s. 493.2(b) contribute to the likelihood does not change the outcome where the release plan does not address the underlying issues. This principle was also echoed in R. v. Nanibush, 2024 ONSC 737.

Conclusion

I acknowledge that in our criminal justice system detention is the exception and release is the norm. However, that presumption rests on the expectation that an accused will abide by the conditions of court orders imposed upon them. Mr. McDonald has been subject to multiple probation orders, yet he has consistently disregarded those terms and, in doing so, placed members of the public at risk. In the circumstances, he falls outside the presumption of release. The exception, therefore, applies, and detention is required.

I hereby order Mr. McDonald's detention under the secondary ground.

Matter adjourned to September 18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in 201 Court.